Genuine question re pensioner fuel payment cut

Exactly. Remember how Sunak excluded 3 million self employed/casuals/freelancers from the covid support. He claimed it was "too hard" to have anything other than simplistic criteria/cut offs, despite them being illogical and unfair. The default excuse back then, too, was that there was universal credit for those who were excluded - so basically people who had savings, or a working partner earning too much, etc were doubly excluded as they couldn't claim UC as the "backup" plan either.

I'd make the cut off higher than being entitled to pension credit. Some people who aren't entitled to a full pension will be better off than people who are, that is crazy in my view.

I've worked in HR for many years, this sort of thing makes people decide they don't want to plan for their future, don't want to save, reject the offer of a work based pension because it isn't worth it. I know that is true as I've had the conversations e.g. the boss is offering you money every month on top of what you earn so you will have a decent pension. Reply, not worth it as they will keep me if I have nothing. They were right weren't they so instead of people being self sufficient they rely on the tax payer. Great result.

I could! Anyone could!

But you could apply that argument to winter fuel allowance? Or any benefit really.

In theory the free school meals pupils are getting when they’re in wealthy families, are being paid for by their parents’ taxes. It’s cashback to them.

Everyone thinks the system should be fair. And everyone thinks it should be simple. But these two are mutually incompatible. A perfectly fair system would take everyone's circumstances into account, but be too unwieldy to work. A perfectly simple system would be easy to operate but would be manifestly unfair to many.

I don't think it's helpful to just say that the system should be fair without saying where you would draw the line, and why.

What about the people who just miss pension credit and end up much worse off. The system should be fair.

They're using an existing system to means test - qualification for Pension Credit is demonstrating they do not have the means to meet the costs. Makes it cheaper and more efficient to administer, thus freeing up resources in both the administration and the cost/manpower of processing.

Something useful from the tories, I guess. Suppose some just never wanted to believe that it would be used on other benefits than UC.

I didn't.
**
There's a reason labour has only been in power for a third of the last century.
**
They're utterly useless“

You’ve, presumably, lived through the past 14 years in the UK? Yet say Labour is utterly useless?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I agree with this but the bar was set too low for the winter fuel allowance. They're not means testing it, they're penalising those people who are on a low pension income but aren't eligible for pension credit. And they need to apply it to other schemes. It's ludicrous that primary school aged children from wealthy families get free school meals.

It was effective for elderly not well off people.

This is what people are saying, but the Government have made the cut off point too low. Many pensioners who only receive state pension will be really struggling this winter.

The elderly are no poorer these days than working age people.

Any help needs to be means tested and focussed on those who actually need it most. My elderly (well off) parents have been giving their payment to my key worker sibling for years and i know many comfortably off pensioners doing similar, it was never an effective benefit.

If the government is cracking down on this, then there must be data on these types of families. Where is it?
Anecdotes don't count.

Anecdote isn't data. What about the stinking rich tax evaders/public contract cheats who steal far, far more public money, as a matter of real stats?

I know a family locally, none of whom has worked for generations. It's a lifestyle choice. I believe the government is rightly cracking down on this.

And even when dads did come home a whole generation of children were effectively living in single parent households.

Or without a parent at all, evacuation wasn't just about keeping children safe, it allowed their parents t twork, typically dad at war and mum on the home front.

Children evacuated from the channel islands had no contact for years.except an occasional red cross message of a single paragraph.

When my grandad came home my dad was on the street on his bike and of course grandad said to him, "hello, I'm your dad", my dad said, "No you are not, my Daddy is at the war" and cycled off.

Well indeed; the only able bodied people I know who chose not to work, and I count myself in that bucket sometimes, are making that choice because they don't need the income and can afford to support themselves. Those mythical people who chose not to work and life a life of luxury on benefits, before retiring on more than those who do/have worked, seem to hide themselves well. I am sure there are people who spend many years on benefits, but they are not living a life of luxury either now or in retirement. Or at least, not luxury as most of us would define it!

They are clearly taking about the second world war that ended in 1945. But realistically you are talking about elderly people who were children or teenagers during the war. And quite a lot either had a parent die, return injured, or return traumatised.

Who are these people, and do you have evidence to back this statement up?

Not the first world war they don't. It ended in 1918. Anyone born then would need to be at least 106

You get a free bus pass at 60 in Merseyside, it can be used on the trains and ferry in Merseyside too. I have a disability bus pass that can also be used to get free transport throughout Merseyside.

100% agree with this.